from the is-it-worth-it? dept

We've never really understood the desire to go after middlemen, rather than those actually responsible for things -- but for some reason, many, many people tend to focus on them. We talk about the importance of Section 230 or the DMCA's 512 safe harbors in protecting middlemen from liability over actions of their users. Or we talk about how law enforcement freaks out about illegal activity advertised on Craigslist and Backpage, rather than using those tools to actually track down the law breakers.

And yet... it continues. TorrentFreak has been covering how the latest copyright laws in Spain (which have been updated repeatedly over the past few years at the demands of Hollywood) mean that linking sites -- which, in the past, had been declared perfectly legal -- may now face tremendous liability. As a result of this, a few of those sites have decided to shut down. That's not surprising, and I'm sure that the legacy copyright players are excited about this result, high-fiving each other around the office, saying "job well done." Except, of course, it's not. In another post, where TorrentFreak spoke to the folks behind Wiziwig, a sports linking site that has shut down, there's an aside where it becomes clear that because Wiziwig has shut down, actual streams of sporting events may be more available than in the past:

“What we noticed Thursday [the day the site went down], and that’s what we’ve always been thinking, is that the Premier League has only been focusing on Wiziwig lately to take down streams, like those from [P2P streaming service] Sopcast for example,” Wiziwig told us.

“If we added a Sopcast link for a game in the Premier League, then quickly that link was made inaccessible. On Thursday all Sopcast channels kept working all day, without any been taking down during the early kickoff, 3pm game and late game. Coincidence?”

The idea that the soccer league had been using Wiziwig to find streams and have them taken down at source was confirmed when matches streamed from other sources also remained up.

“Same applied with Veetle links, as when those previously appeared on Wiziwig they were quickly taken down. If we didn’t add them they were working all game long, while people could find them easily in Veetle. That also applied to several other links.”

Now, I'm sure some copyright system defenders will argue that this is an okay tradeoff -- that in taking down the middleman linking site, they also made it harder for people to find those other streams that remain up. But... that's unlikely to be that true. The folks who really want to watch these kinds of things are generally members of communities of folks who are equally interested, and the links to new sources can get passed around quite quickly. So the people who are watching the infringing content still get to do so.

All that's really happened is that the copyright holders who are rushing around trying to take down everything now have made their own job more difficult by going after a tool that helps them find the actual infringement. That's why it's really dumb to focus on the middlemen rather than the actual end users who are streaming the infringing content.

from the making-Franco-proud dept

After a series of moves that include introducing copyright laws that threaten the digital commons and open access, as well as criminalizing online calls for street demonstrations, Spain is fast emerging as a serious rival to Russia when it comes to grinding down the digital world. Unfortunately, it seems that lack of understanding extends to the judiciary too, as shown by recent events reported by Rise Up, an "autonomous body based in Seattle", which aims to provide secure and private email accounts for "people and groups working on liberatory social change". Here's what happened to some of its users in Spain:

On Tuesday December 16th, a large police operation took place in the Spanish State. Fourteen houses and social centers were raided in Barcelona, Sabadell, Manresa, and Madrid. Books, leaflets, computers were seized and eleven people were arrested and sent to the Audiencia Nacional, a special court handling issues of "national interest", in Madrid. They are accused of incorporation, promotion, management, and membership of a terrorist organisation.

The charges are extremely serious, and yet according to the Rise Up post, the accused have not been provided with any details of their alleged terrorist crimes. The judge in the case has, however, given a rather worrying justification for keeping many of them in prison:

Four of the detainees have been released, but seven have been jailed pending trial. The reasons given by the judge for their continued detention include the posession of certain books, "the production of publications and forms of communication", and the fact that the defendants "used emails with extreme security measures, such as the RISE UP server".

That is, merely trying to keep your email secure is now viewed in Spain as evidence that you are a terrorist. As the post points out:

Many of the “extreme security measures” used by Riseup are common best practices for online security and are also used by providers such as hotmail, GMail or Facebook.

Moreover:

The European Parliament’s report on the US NSA surveillance program states that "privacy is not a luxury right, but the foundation stone of a free and democratic society".

It is against the law to participate in a demonstration before a state institution without sending prior notification to the relevant government office.

Disobedience or resistance to authorities; refusing to identify oneself; and giving false or inaccurate information given to state security agents are all prohibited.

"Insulting, harassing, threatening, or coercing" members of the Security Forces will constitute a serious offense.

But in addition to these general measures, there are some aimed specifically at ending the use of the Internet to organize protests:

Those who call for demonstrations through the Internet, social networks, or another other means may also be penalized for having committed a very serious offense.

The circulation of riot images during demonstrations can also constitute a very serious offense, punishable by 600,000€.

Circulating information on the Internet that is understood to be an attack on an individual's privacy or that of a person's family, or that contributes to disrupting an operation, will be punished equally with fines up to 600,000€.

The chilling effect that those last three will have on protests is clear. People will be reluctant to express any view that might be interpreted as calling for a demonstration, however vague. Forbidding riot images from being posted will, of course, mean that images of any police brutality against demonstrators are less likely to be circulated widely, removing one of the few brakes on violent police responses. And the last one concerning an "attack on privacy" is so vague that any mention of an individual might well be caught by it. In addition, anyone "insulting" Spain, its symbols or emblems, may be punished with up to a year's imprisonment.

Despite pressure from the public and opposition politicians, the legislation has been passed by the Spanish Congress, and now goes to the Senate for final approval. That means the only thing likely to halt it is an appeal to Spain's Constitutional Court. What's worrying here is the very clear intent to bring in a law that makes the online organization and coverage of peaceful protests difficult or even impossible -- something that many other governments would doubtlessly love to achieve, and may well even be encouraged to attempt if Spain goes ahead with this awful proposal.

from the defending-the-glue dept

Last week we reported on the Spanish newspaper publishers' association (AEDE) begging the Spanish government and EU to stop Google News shutting down as it realizes how much its members depend on Google for traffic to newspaper sites. To bring home just how stupid the new Spanish copyright law is, the online site Hipertextual.com is now calling for a boycott of all titles owned by AEDE (original in Spanish):

Are you too against the new copyright law and the AEDE tax on media and aggregators? The first step you can take right now is to begin a boycott of AEDE titles: don't visit them, don't link to them, don't give them traffic or relevance.

The Hipertextual.com article also recommends installing add-ons for the Chrome and Firefox browsers that automatically block all links to AEDE titles, and provides lists of international, national and regional alternatives.

Even if it is well supported, the boycott on its own probably wouldn't have much effect, but combined with the devastating loss of traffic that Google News closing will cause, it will certainly add to the pressure on the AEDE publishers. Just as importantly, it will also show that whatever the Spanish government may think, the country's new copyright law is not just about squeezing money from a rich US company, but also represents a serious threat to the basic glue that holds the Web together -- the hypertext link.

The Spanish Newspaper Publishers' Association (AEDE) issued a statement last night saying that Google News was "not just the closure of another service given its dominant market position", recognising that Google’s decision: "will undoubtedly have a negative impact on citizens and Spanish businesses".

"Given the dominant position of Google (which in Spain controls almost all of the searches in the market and is an authentic gateway to the Internet), AEDE requires the intervention of Spanish and community authorities, and competition authorities, to effectively protect the rights of citizens and companies".

What that intervention might be is not clear. AEDE can hardly expect the Spanish government to pass a new law making it compulsory for Google to keep its Google News service running at a loss. The only workable option is to take the route followed in Germany: to give Google a special deal that allows it to carry on as before, but without having to pay -- which would gut the new copyright law completely.

What makes this situation even more ridiculous is that, according to the ABC.es newspaper, German publishers are now asking Angela Merkel to change the manifestly broken German approach to using news snippets online, by copying the even more backward-looking Spanish law (original in Spanish.) Once again, it seems that an obsession with "protecting" copyright from imaginary harm causes otherwise rational people to lose the ability to think properly.

from the bad-copyright-policy dept

Back in October, we noted that Spain had passed a ridiculously bad Google News tax, in which it required any news aggregator to pay for snippets and actually went so far as to make it an "inalienable right" to be paid for snippets -- meaning that no one could choose to let any aggregator post snippets for free. Publishers have to charge any aggregator. This is ridiculous and dangerous on many levels. As we noted, it would be deathly for digital commons projects or any sort of open access project, which thrive on making content reusable and encouraging the widespread sharing of such content.

Apparently, it's also deathly for Google News in Spain. A few hours ago, Google announced that due to this law, it was shutting down Google News in Spain, and further that it would be removing all Spanish publications from the rest of Google News. In short, Google went for the nuclear option in the face of a ridiculously bad law:

But sadly, as a result of a new Spanish law, we’ll shortly have to close Google News in Spain. Let me explain why. This new legislation requires every Spanish publication to charge services like Google News for showing even the smallest snippet from their publications, whether they want to or not. As Google News itself makes no money (we do not show any advertising on the site) this new approach is simply not sustainable. So it’s with real sadness that on 16 December (before the new law comes into effect in January) we’ll remove Spanish publishers from Google News, and close Google News in Spain.

Every time there have been attempts to get Google to cough up some money to publishers in this or that country, people (often in our comments) suggest that Google should just "turn off" Google News in those countries. Google has always resisted such calls. Even in the most extreme circumstances, it's just done things like removing complaining publications from Google News, or posting the articles without snippets. In both cases, publishers quickly realized how useful Google News was in driving traffic and capitulated. In this case, though, it's not up to the publishers. It's entirely up to the law.

The reason the law made it an "inalienable right" was to prevent Google from just removing those publishers. Instead, the end result is it got Google to shut down the whole thing, and deprive every Spanish publication not of money, but of traffic -- which may be much more important.

For centuries publishers were limited in how widely they could distribute the printed page. The Internet changed all that -- creating tremendous opportunities but also real challenges for publishers as competition both for readers’ attention and for advertising Euros increased. We’re committed to helping the news industry meet that challenge and look forward to continuing to work with our thousands of partners globally, as well as in Spain, to help them increase their online readership and revenues.

And the really stupid thing in all this is that, as Google notes, it wasn't even placing ads on Google News in Spain. So it's not even that publishers could claim that Google was "profiting" from driving such traffic to their sites.

So, nice going Spanish politicians. Your new copyright law not only makes you a laughingstock for pushing a ridiculous industry-driven legislation, but you've made life worse off for everyone. Citizens lose an important way to find relevant news. Publishers lose a big traffic driver. Open access and digital commons are now effectively dead in Spain as well. Who has won here?

Even if you're a Google hater who is happy to see a country pass a clearly anti-Google law, there are much bigger issues here, as pointed out by the EFF, which highlights how this law is an attack on the basic right to link:

What concerns EFF more is that these ancillary copyright laws form part of a broader trend ofderogation from the right to link. This can be seen when you examine the other parts of the Spanish copyright amendments that take effect in January (here in PDF)—notably placing criminal liability on website operators who refuse to remove mere links to copyright-infringing material.

This year's European Court of Justice ruling against Google Spain on the so-called Right to be Forgotten, is part of the same larger trend, in requiring search engines to remove links to content judged to be “irrelevant”, even if the content is true. We are also disturbed by comments made by new European Digital Commissioner Günther Oettinger who has foreshadowed [German]a broader roll-out of ancillary copyright rules throughout the EU.

Online intermediaries may be a convenient scapegoat for the fading fortunes of European newspaper publishers, but banning the use of text snippets alongside website links is a misguided and—now self-evidently—counter-productive approach. Once it becomes illegal for aggregators to freely link news summaries to publicly-available websites, it becomes that much easier for those who want to prohibit other sorts of links, such as links to political YouTube videos, to make their case.

Hopefully politicians in the rest of Europe take notice, before pushing forward with similarly short-sighted attacks on linking and aggregating.

from the holy-trademark-abuse,-batman! dept

When it comes to being IP bullies, DC Comics has built quite the reputation for itself. From its taking on the gravestone of a victim of child abuse in the name of protectionism to taking on BBQ joints because of a logo that includes a bat. That last historical example foreshadows this latest news, in which DC Comics decides to take on a Spanish soccer team for having the audacity to include a bat in its logo.

According to a report from Yahoo Eurosport, DC Comics is suing the Spanish soccer team Liga Giants Valencia over their logo, which apparently resembles Batman's logo in that it also features a bat. Unfortunately, according to European reports, the bat has been a symbol used in Spain for about 800 years. There's even a fucking Wikipedia page about it. And the soccer team's bat logo has been in use since 1919, before Batman was first published.

Here's the logo in dispute.

Do the two logos have similarities? Sure, but that says a great deal more about the general indistinctness of DC Comics' mark than it does about any sort of malicious copying by the Valencia club. Add to that the fact that, even working with such a general shape and color scheme, there are distinct differences between these two marks and the many, many other Batman marks that have been registered in the past, and one wonders what DC Comics was thinking yet again with another silly trademark dispute. After all, were you to review every Batman logo that's been registered as a trademark, a means for customers to identify a particular brand, you have to wonder if there hasn't been a real attempt to simply trademark every possible iteration of a bat as a logo. And that makes me wonder why such a practice doesn't invalidate the trademark altogether.

All this and we haven't even mentioned yet that I'm fairly certain that DC Comics doesn't own a soccer club anywhere, so I'm not even remotely clear on how these two logos are competing in the same marketplace with the potential to confuse the same potential consumers. Add to that the long-established use of a bat as a logo in the Valencia region and this looks like a losing proposition for DC Comics.

Probably, DC thought this dumbassery would fly under the radar because it's happening Spain, which does not have its own official Has DC Done Something Stupid Today counter, but they're wrong, because The Outhouse is going international!

from the sexpensive dept

When you write about as many different people, groups and organizations as we do here at Techdirt, you occasionally forget to check in on some places and people occasionally. Take SGAE, for instance. It's the Spanish music collection group that has made a name for itself chiefly stealing money from artists, epitomizing corruption, and generally behaving like pain-in-the-butt asshats whenever given the opportunity. We haven't checked on SGAE in about three years or so, so I assume the group has completely turned itself around and are now a shining example of above-board behavior?

Pedro Farré, the former head of corporate relations at the Spanish Society of Authors and Publishers (SGAE) was handed a 30-month sentence after the National Court found him guilty of embezzlement and faking work-related documents. The judge said Farré had withdrawn cash during his jaunts to brothels, and then created "completely false" receipts, supposedly for services such as "catering" for SGAE clients which he later handed in to his employer's accounting office to claim the money back. These were submitted alongside genuine receipts to avoid arousing suspicion, the court heard.

Look, let's give some credit where credit is due: it takes a supreme set of testicles to turn in $50k worth of receipts for money spent at whorehouses and try to write them off for reimbursement. On the other hand, I don't think it disqualifies Pedro from the corruption championships, either. And let's keep in mind that money fraudulently extracted as SGAE overhead for banging hookers is taking more money out of the hands of artists in a very real way. Why do these collection groups that represent artists always seem to have so much disdain for them at the same time?

Anyway, once caught, Pedro copped to what he'd done, came clean, and faced the music like a man. Nah, just kidding, he totally tried to make up another ridiculous, but hilarious, excuse.

[The judge] also slammed the copyright expert's claims he had visited the clubs to see if there were any rights issues in terms of the music being played there. During the trial, the former SGAE executive even argued he had been framed by a detective and journalist named Cervero who was unable to appear as a witness during the trial because of serious heart problems.

The presiding judge, however, dismissed those claims as well.

But, your honor, I was only visiting the brothel to make sure none of them were playing unlicensed music to their whores. Not the most convincing argument, sir. Keep it classy SGAE.

from the taxing-google dept

Apparently ignoring just how badly this worked out for publishers in Germany, the Spanish Parliament has passed a law to fine aggregators and search engines for using snippets or linking to infringing content. As plenty of folks have described, the bill is clearly just a Google tax. As we had discussed, the proposed bill would be a disaster for digital commons/open access projects. There had been some thought that the proposed bill might be delayed because of a referral to the EU Court of Justice on a related issue, but apparently that didn't happen. Either way, it looks like the bill kept the ridiculous "inalienable right" to being paid for snippets -- meaning that Creative Commons-type licenses may not even be allowed, and people won't even be allowed to offer up their content for free. That's ridiculous.

It appears that almost everyone dislikes the law that passed. On the internet/aggregator side of things, the law doesn't make any sense at all, and seems likely to harm any sort of aggregator setup. And, meanwhile, those who want greater copyright expansion felt the law was a "missed opportunity" that is described as "vague and weak." I guess the silver lining is that "it could have been worse."

This idea of taxing aggregators for promoting your content is still completely ridiculous. It remains to be seen if Google takes the same approach as it did in Germany, removing the snippets of those who protest, only to have them begging to put them back -- except that, unlike in Germany, the newspapers may not be able to grant a free license thanks to the whole "inalienable right" thing. Either way, it's unfortunate that this seems to be the direction Europe is heading in. These kinds of laws are a recipe for chilling effects on innovation online, scaring companies away from doing useful things.

A -- Is a copyright levy system, that -- taking as a basis the estimation of the actual damage -- is financed through the State budget thus not making possible to guarantee that the costs of this compensation are only supported by the users of the private copies (as opposed to the non-users), compliant with Article 5(2)(b)b) of [EU] Directive 2001/29?

B -- If the answer is in the affirmative, is it compliant with Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 that the total quantity set aside by the government for this compensation, which is calculated in view of the estimation of the actual damage, is set within [or conditioned by] the budget restrictions for each financial year?

So it looks like we will get another copyright judgment from the EUCJ, which has been increasinglycalledupon to give definitive rulings in this area. The IPKat notes that until the EUCJ decision is handed down, all of Spain's new copyright law may be put on hold -- no bad thing considering how awful much of it is.